What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

How come you are so hasty as triggered by your ignorance?

I suggested you must read Korsgaard's view thoroughly to understand [not necessary agree with/yet] her views.

Within Korsgaard's Framework of Morality there is the question of justifying the highest good which obviously reject all evil acts, notably 'murder'.

Look. I have been insisting on the moral maxim,
'No human ought to kill another human'
how could I have suggested Korsgaard's view if she had advocated the contrary.

I've no doubt that Korsgaard doesn't advocate murdering our enemies - just as nor do you and I.

I'm pointing out the implication of this account of morality - where it comes from - and how it could be objective. The only way to rescue the theory would be by way of special pleading - 'justifying the highest good' - which was predictable.

Didn't you notice the term 'justifying'.
see: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... sh/justify

As I had always stated the process of justification is as close as possible to how Science justifies its scientific facts/truths/knowledge.
You deny scientific facts/truths/knowledge are objective?

Note this new OP,
All Moral Statements are Opinions??
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29465

1 If the word opinion irritates you, use judgement or belief. A moral assertion expresses a judgement or belief.

2 A justification is merely an explanation for making a judgement or holding a belief, which can be expressed by means of an assertion.

3 Natural scientists offer empirical evidence to justify their judgements or beliefs, which they express by means of factual assertions with truth-value: true or false.

4 Moral realists and objectivists claim that there are moral features of reality, for which there's empirical evidence - so that moral assertions make factual claims with truth-value. And theirs is the burden of proof for the existence of these features of reality - unmet so far, in my opinion.

[Peter Holmes]

I'd like moral objectivists here address the vegan assertion: eating animals and their products is morally wrong.

If morality is objective - if moral assertions make truth-claims about reality - so that a moral assertion is (classically) true or false - how do objectivists here assess this vegan moral assertion?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I've no doubt that Korsgaard doesn't advocate murdering our enemies - just as nor do you and I.

I'm pointing out the implication of this account of morality - where it comes from - and how it could be objective. The only way to rescue the theory would be by way of special pleading - 'justifying the highest good' - which was predictable.

Didn't you notice the term 'justifying'.
see: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... sh/justify

As I had always stated the process of justification is as close as possible to how Science justifies its scientific facts/truths/knowledge.
You deny scientific facts/truths/knowledge are objective?

Note this new OP,
All Moral Statements are Opinions??
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29465

1 If the word opinion irritates you, use judgement or belief. A moral assertion expresses a judgement or belief.

Nope!
I have demonstrated the continuum of what is held to be true from 'opinion' to 'belief' to 'knowledge'/fact. All these are based on some type of judgment corresponding to a quality of judgment respectively.

A moral assertion can be a moral opinion, moral belief or moral fact.
What I have presented are justified objective moral facts as derived from a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

2 A justification is merely an explanation for making a judgement or holding a belief, which can be expressed by means of an assertion.

There is a quality feature to judgment and that depend on the quality of justifications. E.g. a Scientific judgement entails higher quality judgment than say a legal judgment.

3 Natural scientists offer empirical evidence to justify their judgements or beliefs, which they express by means of factual assertions with truth-value: true or false.

It is the same with the empirical moral realists who justify their judgments to produce moral facts - i.e. justified true moral beliefs.

4 Moral realists and objectivists claim that there are moral features of reality, for which there's empirical evidence - so that moral assertions make factual claims with truth-value. And theirs is the burden of proof for the existence of these features of reality - unmet so far, in my opinion.

You have to differentiate the,
absolute moral realists from
the relative empirical moral realists.

Note the moral fact;
'no human ought to stop another human from breathing till they die'.

Moral facts are not natural facts thus cannot be proven as natural facts.
Among others moral facts can be justified based on the principle of universality.
Thus if, the contrary maxim,
'all humans should stop other humans from breathing till they die'
then,
the human species will be extinct in theory.
This is not a natural fact at this point but a moral fact as derived from a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

Note the following example;
It is a legal fact existing in all nations;
'no human ought to murder another human'
What is the substance of the above legal fact other than what is enacted as laws in some legislature - a Framework and System of Legislature.
What is worst, the above fact is not derived from solid empirical evidences.

In contrast to the above,
a moral fact is justified from empirical evidences via a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.
Note the maxim 'no human ought to stop other humans from breathing till they die' is obvious relied upon evident empirical evidences from natural facts.

[Peter Holmes]

a moral fact is justified from empirical evidences via a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.
Note the maxim 'no human ought to stop other humans from breathing till they die' is obvious relied upon evident empirical evidences from natural facts.

Nope. You can say this till the cows come home, but it remains false.

'Humans must breathe or they die' is a fact - a true factual assertion, based on empirical evidence.

But 'No human ought to stop other humans from breathing till they die' is not a fact - a true factual assertion. There is no empirical evidence, because it does not make a factual claim. Instead, it expresses a moral value-judgement.

You merely insist on an entailment which does not, in fact, exist - which is why denying the moral consequent does not produce a contradiction.

But, tell you what - let's keep this going for ever and ever, until one of us stops breathing.

[Atla]

So, like Peter,
Therefore, you are cornered to accept it is not morally wrong if anyone wants to kill you rape your wife/daughters/kin or commit any other evil acts on him and others.
The above do not sound nice, but I have to introduce such drastic examples with the hope to get the message through.

The point is, there is no absolute-objective morality [e.g. Platonic Forms or God moral laws] but there are justifiable relative objective moral facts just like how Science derives its relative objective scientific facts.
Do you dispute that scientific facts are not objective?

What empirical evidence do you mean by the way? We have evidence that during the 4 billion years of life on this planet, most organisms survived by eating other organisms. Humans also have to kill plants or plants+animals. And most organisms (including a few humans) don't even have any morality.

While there are eating and killing of each other inter-species, there is the core principle of self-preservation within intra-species, especially of the higher animals.
Whilst there are intraspecies competition, the indication such competition is by default for the long good of the species, i.e. the preservation of the species.

Show me which specifically identified species [higher animals] strive to eat and kill each other within the species?

Note:

From the gene-centred view, it follows that the more two individuals are genetically related, the more sense (at the level of the genes) it makes for them to behave selflessly with each other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene

Morality is inherent to the human species.
Note,
There are research on babies of less than 12 months [not yet significantly influenced by nurture] that demonstrated human babies has an inherent propensity for morality.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/
The Moral Life of Babies
Yale Psychology Professor Paul Bloom finds the origins of morality in infants
Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with.

At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness. It is from these beginnings, he argues in his new book Just Babies, that adults develop their sense of right and wrong, their desire to do good — and, at times, their capacity to do terrible things.

Lol okay, so you admitted that there is no absolute-objective morality. I accept your admission of defeat.

Quickly changing the subject to non-absolute morality, and then claiming that I was arguing against that one, and saying that I was cornered, is pathetic. Drawing a parallel with science is also pathetic.

Denying the existence of genuinely amoral people is pathetic, yes they are rare, but denying their existence is a great source of the world's evils.

Is it morally right or wrong to beat dishonest idiots like Veritas into a pulp?

[Skepdick]

Lol okay, so you admitted that there is no absolute-objective morality. I accept your admission of defeat.

There's no absolute-objective anything - you defeated yourself before you started.

Quickly changing the subject to non-absolute morality,

The topic is non-absolute objectivity.
The topic is not non-absolute morality.

Denying the existence of genuinely amoral people is pathetic, yes they are rare, but denying their existence is a great source of the world's evils.

But there's no absolutely-objective evil?

Is it morally right or wrong to beat dishonest idiots like Veritas into a pulp?

Only if you can do it without defeating yourself with your own argument.

Too bad you don't get to use words like "right" and "wrong" while you insist on non-dualism.

[Atla]

Lol okay, so you admitted that there is no absolute-objective morality. I accept your admission of defeat.

There's no absolute-objective anything - you defeated yourself before you started.

Quickly changing the subject to non-absolute morality,

The topic is non-absolute objectivity.
The topic is not non-absolute morality.

Denying the existence of genuinely amoral people is pathetic, yes they are rare, but denying their existence is a great source of the world's evils.

But there's no absolutely-objective evil?

Is it morally right or wrong to beat dishonest idiots like Veritas into a pulp?

Only if you can do it without defeating yourself with your own argument.

Your last few replies made me reconsider things, now I see the error of my ways. I should have said at least 85% not 80.

[Skepdick]

Your last few replies made me reconsider things, now I see the error of my ways. I should have said at least 85% not 80.

The higher you crank it up - the wronger you become.

Even in erring about error you were in error. Tsk tsk tsk.

[Peter Holmes]

I'll try this again.

I'd like moral objectivists here address the vegan assertion: eating animals and their products is morally wrong.

If morality is objective - if moral assertions make truth-claims about reality - so that a moral assertion is (classically) true or false - how do objectivists here assess this vegan moral assertion?

If, as they claim, the assertion is true or false, which do they think it is - and how do they know?

If the assertion is true, what is it in reality that makes it true, the existence of which means it isn't false?

No answers so far. Too embarrassing, perhaps. Who likes having their bullshit called out?

[Skepdick]

I'd like moral objectivists here address the vegan assertion: eating animals and their products is morally wrong.

You must learn to walk before you can learn to run.

You can't even figure out that murder is objectively wrong and why, but you want to discuss complex topics without understanding what the terms "objective" and "wrong" mean.

It's like teaching quantum mechanics to a toddler.

No answers so far. Too embarrassing, perhaps. Who likes having their bullshit called out?

Me! Call me out!

I don't know whether eating animals and their products is morally wrong. It is yet-undetermined so it's neither true nor false. Figuring out the answer is work in progress.

But I do know that murder is wrong. That is not undetermined. It has a truth-value.

[Peter Holmes]

Many vegans 'know' that eating animals and their products is - and always was and will be - morally wrong.

And some of them condemn non-vegans for their ignorance and unconscionable barbarism: meat and milk is murder.

But, of course, there's a fact of this complex matter - because the moral wrongness or rightness of eating animals and their products is 'out there', in reality - just as the uncomplex moral wrongness of murdering Hitler was 'out there' in reality.

Unmitigated bullshit.

[Skepdick]

Many vegans 'know' that eating animals and their products is - and always was and will be - morally wrong.

And some of them condemn non-vegans for their ignorance and unconscionable barbarism: meat and milk is murder.

But, of course, there's a fact of this complex matter - because the moral wrongness or rightness of eating animals and their products is 'out there', in reality - just as the uncomplex moral wrongness of murdering Hitler was 'out there' in reality.

Unmitigated bullshit.

There is no difference between "out there" and "in here". That's what you dumb ass dualists don't get. It's ALL part of reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

[henry quirk]

I'd like moral objectivists here address the vegan assertion: eating animals and their products is morally wrong.

If morality is objective - if moral assertions make truth-claims about reality - so that a moral assertion is (classically) true or false - how do objectivists here assess this vegan moral assertion?

I've answered already with this...

Ownness (a man belongs to himself) is a fact (a true statement; one that jibes with reality).

Now, morality is all about the rightness or wrongness of a man's intent, his choices, his actions and conduct, as he interacts with, or impinges on, another. Seems to me, the validity of a morality rests solely with how well the assessment of wrongness or rightness agrees with reality, or with statements about reality.

So, a moral fact is a true statement; one that aligns with the reality of a man (not his personality, or opinion, or whims, but what is fundamental to him, ownness).

Can I say slavery is wrong is a moral fact?

Yes.

To enslave a man, to make him into property, is wrong not because such a thing is distasteful, or as a matter of opinion, or because utilitarians declare it unbeneficial. Leashing a man is wrong, all the time, everywhere, because the leash violates him, violates what he is.

Summed up, generalized: A person belongs to him- or her- or it-self. It's wrong to use a person as resource.

So: which animals are persons? I've never met a chicken that qualifies, but I've known a few dogs who do.

[RCSaunders]

So: which animals are persons? I've never met a chicken that qualifies, but I've known a few dogs who do.

There are some beings which are difficult to categorize. They look like human beings, but behave worse than any animals. How do you treat them?

[henry quirk]

So: which animals are persons? I've never met a chicken that qualifies, but I've known a few dogs who do.

There are some beings which are difficult to categorize. They look like human beings, but behave worse than any animals. How do you treat them?

Stupid people are still people.

I might shoot 'em, but I ain't eatin' 'em.